Employment, Capitalism, Environment and Resources by Joshua Konov

Modern day’s economics encounters conflict between market (market synonyms of economic, economy) growth that could boost employment and the environmental regulations, which are obstacles, adding to high taxation and business regulations such conflict could have serious weakening effect on businesses’ competitive edge. It is so right, because in current relatively low security markets founded on cyclical runoffs and high lending rates, particularly to small businesses and investors, the business competitiveness is negatively affected, a step farther, by additionally imposed environmental rules and regulations. In addition to, the environmentally friendly products average high production prices and high technological machinery prices that makes such production quite expensive, indeed. Only subsidies and tax initiatives could help sustain market competitiveness, however, these subsidies and tax breaks are watered down into unproductive artificial market interference in an insecure market, which instead of enhancing the market competition are pushing it down making it totally dependent on such tax breaks and subsidies for their existence.

LONDON — For years, Europe has tried to set the global standard for climate-change regulation, creating tough rules on emissions, mandating more use of renewable energy sources and arguably sacrificing some economic growth in the name of saving the planet. But now even Europe seems to be hitting its environmentalist limits. (Europe, Facing Economic Pain, May Ease Climate Rules By STEPHEN CASTLEJAN. 22, 2014)

The global business conditions of many countries running high deficit and accumulating national debt establish highly unlikely conditions to meet the demand for environmentally friendly products and alternative energies anytime soon.

Declining Earth resources prompt energy related inflation, which aggravate the need to maintain consistent economic/market growth in a runoff to survival for developed and developing markets alike. However, the 2007-09 Recession has been followed by anemic rebound of employment and of personal income, contemporaneously causing market imbalance of demand-to-supply high national indebtedness. Easing Interest Rates, Quantitative Easing and Stimulus Packages have decelerated the processes of declining economic indicators, but could not boost market activities to the needed fundamental turn around. Outsourcing and moving of industrial production prompts high unemployment and marginal personal income growth. The inadequate consumption resulted from the declining industrial employment has long lasting negative consequences to the market development. The fundamentals of the trickle down Capitalism lay on relative high lending rates, shady business that benefits large transnational corporations and investors, however, under the new developing market conditions of globalization and rising productivity, of the Chinas that make outsourcing and moving industrial production targeting reduction of expenses much easier, the trickle down approach cannot function appropriately.

In this new global market, small to medium businesses and investors play progressively higher role to create employment, enhance consumption and business activities overall, the current economics empowers large corporations and investors in conflict with what is necessary for market development. The shady business practice and unfair competition might had performed well in a pro supply economies of the past, but cannot ensure needed market development of the presence, and such inadequacy is particularly transparent when it comes to the issues of environment and diminishing Earth resources, which are counter productive and cannot keep up market balance, therefore fiscal indebtedness is in progression.

The question remain: if the Earth environment is so much affected by pollution and the Earth resources are so quickly declining to require prompt action?

Even some scientists and politicians object global warming and fight restrictions on pollutions, there should be no question that our environment should be saved to the maximum in the future, and very rarely someone would object it. However, the economics of Capitalism is industrially based: in meaning, industrial production is considered the highest contributor to the GDP of any developed economy, therefore in times of slow growth and factors that regulate industrial production, limit it too, and while the competition is Global, coming from places with wider opened doors and more flexible regulations, the competitiveness and success of any economy is directly affected by any regulations the particularly environmental ones. Hence, if Environmental protection, environmentally friendly production and alternative energies are to be implemented: it could be done only on an equal base globally, or/and if the system of economics is amended to apprehend these new developments. Any other ways, such cause is “cauza perduta”, and especially in the conditions of slow economic growth.

Subsidies and tax breaks could help environmental protection to a certain point, sure, it could be done only nationally for the most developed economies, but even in there counter market measures of such regulations are politically resisted; these are just very difficult to be implemented when working against the markets.

What kind of economics could adopt Environmental protection, environmentally friendly production and alternative energies into a productive competition?

The Capitalistic economics takes productivity as the main economic tool for growth, thus anything that prompt it is good and anything that slows it is bad for the economy: social, educational and infrastructural expenses are bad, business laws and regulations are bad too, while deregulated and shady business practices, lower taxes for the rich, no social or medical protection and expenses are good.

Well, are all of these the bad, bad or the good, good? – Yes, these are…, but such statement reflects the reality of the modern days Capitalism of industrial production and trickle down capital.

The world history (recent Greece is a perfect example) shows that governments could not manage markets, being inept and inflexible the governments create redundancies and economic upheaval. Only free entrepreneurship and a free market business environment can create market balance, however the 2007-09 Recession was not created by the government’s spending or redundancies, but it was a product of real estate overcapitalization in an economy depressed in any other sectors, which was not growing proportionately. I may bravely concur, that if the US economy in 2007 was growing proportionately in other than the real estate overcapitalization the crash effect of the overcapitalization would have been different.

It becomes obvious that the governments running economies/markets or overcapitalization product of deregulated business could bring very similar consequences.

The productivity as main tool for economic growth runs on a high gear runoffs of industrial production, for which, I believe, is insufficient to steer “noise” in the 1=f noise formula, and in the real life for bringing accelerated business activity and prompt market development (development equals growth). The small and medium businesses and investors have become the main economic agents, in times of high technologies; globalization and rising productivity do spear employment and business activity. However, shady business practices, the lock of international intellectual property protection, the over all high interest rate lending works better for large transnationals and investors, establishing unfair market competition. But, if artificial tools such as tax breaks and subsidies or low interest rate loans only are used to promote fair market competition, the long term results would not be any positive, therefore, some market related and natural for the markets economic agents should be adapted to do it.

Which are these natural for the markets agents and tools that could marginalize the unfairness in market competition and steer the “noise” as an addition to “productivity” to prompt market development and maintain market fluency, and thus raise the market security that will lower lending interest rate?

To change limited corporate liability into unlimited

To enforce business contract lows

To enhance project insurance and bonding requirements

To enhance intellectual property protection, globally

To enforce equal business laws, globally

These and some other points, I believe, would raise market security, and thus establish relative fair market competition by lowering lending interest rate and accelerating business activities.

After these points are implemented and only then, the role of social, educational and infrastructural expenses (which are considered as artificial for the market agents) should be better comprehended, as partial equity market agents for balancing market’s demand to supply.

But the natural for the market agents should have paramount standing in prompting and maintaining market growth.

The Environmental protection, environmentally friendly production and alternative energies are to be implemented under these new more secure market condition as a main agent for market development, because in a more diverse business climate of accelerated business activities the small and medium businesses and investors would explore any possibilities for marker exploration; thus, lower taxes and subsidies would have more vivid effect on the market development, indeed.